August 14, 2011

This is a line from a caller to Rush Limbaugh's show Friday that really struck me. Full context:

CALLER: You know, [Mitt Romney is] not my favorite candidate... but... I will say this: Yes, he's establishment; yes, he was governor of Massachusetts. But Rush when I compare him to the establishment candidate four years ago, meaning McCain, I feel better about Romney. I think he genuinely has enough conservative values, I think he definitely has an economic background, and I would feel comfortable if he did win; whereas I never would have felt comfortable if McCain won, except that Sarah was there.

RUSH: ... Now, you said Romney's not your favorite. Who is?

CALLER: I'd love to see Sarah Palin run, but I really want to look at Perry.

This struck me — I was listening to the podcast this morning, after knowing the results of the Iowa straw poll — because of the strength of the confidence in Sarah Palin and the comfort embodied in the simple reference "Sarah." I'm touched by this, because I'd always thought that it would be difficult for Americans to get their minds around the idea of a woman as Commander in Chief. Even those who celebrate the advancement of women would, I thought, worry about trusting a woman with the ultimate responsibility for the security of the world. But here is a very conservative man, this caller, who is wary of John McCain, but able to tolerate him because of her. At the same time, Republicans are embracing Michele Bachmann. I'm not hearing any balkiness about accepting a woman President. It has become almost instantly normal.

How did that happen, and why did it happen on the Republican side? When Hillary Clinton ran for President in 2008, there was a lot of talk and enthusiasm about the idea of the first female President. It wasn't normal. The non-normalness was a big plus for some and a negative for others. Barack Obama's path forward came in reaction to Hillary in what — I think — history will see as a very strange psychic shift in the minds of Democratic voters. No! Not the woman! Somehow, within the minds of Democrats, the African-American man could stop the woman, and so, he vaulted into the foreground and, despite a shocking lack of experience, won the presidency.

But these Republicans... what is happening in their minds? How was it that they so easily accepted what looks quite a bit like the simple equality of women?

As I was saying to Meade before I wrote this post, I had always thought that the barrier would have to be broken by someone like Margaret Thatcher, who had a distinctive toughness. That's why I'm surprised by the acceptance of Palin (and Bachmann).

That Thatcher happened in Britain, in a parliamentary system, doesn't establish what would work in America.

I remember Margaret Chase Smith and hearing, when I was a child, that the first woman President might be Margaret Chase Smith. She was the first woman to have her name put in nomination for President at a major party convention, the Republican Convention in 1964. I was 13 then.

But Thatcher established beyond doubt that a woman could be a forceful leader.

I think it's only one part of the answer, though.

The principal factor is that we have seen women become successful in all areas of society. The women who have done so are not male bashing feminists, but balanced individuals who have strong relationships with people of all genders and types.

whereas I never would have felt comfortable if McCain won, except that Sarah was there.

I also voted for Sarah, not McCain.

I considered McCain to be effectively brain dead. And I believe I said on these very pages that I prayed McCain would suffer a debilitating (fatal) heart attack immediately following his inauguration. So he would not have even the slightest opportunity to damage the nation with his brain-deadness.

PS: Speaking of strong women, I could probably throw in Swarthmore -educated (iirc) Madame Chaing Kai Sheck, but the Dragon Lady might just be a little strong for some tastes...although she was a FABULOUS public speaker, people should listen to some of her speeches she gave while touring the US just prior to WW II.

That's not a snarky comment. Even in the trenches of academia, this is pretty much accepted.

Which is why there's a segmenting of women oriented perspectives. Feminism is rich white women. Womanist is African-American women (which has to be differentiated from black women of other cultures). Mujurista is latina women. And there's Asian women.

I also think there's a bit of a Western conservatism influence in all of this. Eastern Republicans have women as matriarchs. Westerners are used to those hard-working, very involved pioneer women.

That's probably why Palin is so familiar to so many of us, while she's so foreign to the Eastern establishment. We on the outskirts are very used to seeing women as leaders and contributors because the women in our histories were those sorts of women.

WV: Ducks. Go Oregon! Mark O. Hatfield died this past week, to very little acknowledgment. Though, given that in 1995 his vote defeated the balanced budget amendment, it seems given the present crises, the acknowledgment might not be entirely favorable. One wonders what life would be like now had that passed.

Liberals loved Clinton in 2008 because she wore the "D" jersey. They hated Palin in the "R" jersey. in 2012, it's the "R" fans who have the luxury of playing the gender card, even if it's not one they normally wave around day-to-day.

Rep. Bachmann says some very good things, and I like some of her positions.

But Presidents without executive experience are trouble. I said that in 2008, and the past three years haven't proven me wrong. Lack of executive experience isn't President Obama's worst problem, by any means, but it's a big problem.

With Gov. Pawlenty dropping out, the number of experienced executives in the race dropped; but Gov. Perry balanced that out.

It is essentially simple, the GOP is open tent. The Democrats actually want to be gate-keepers. They realize that Obama would make their guilt disappear. And, as the Emory professor had in NYT last week, Obama had done nothing. They realized that they could shape Obama. Thus, they support him. Now, they will support him for 2012, because if they do not, then it will show that they were wrong in 2008. But, the left never wants to admit. Ergo, Obama-Biden will win again. There is nothing the GOP can do. Nothing. It is given that you cannot defeat the press champions: NPR, PBS, CNN, NYT, HuffPost, Daily Beast, etc. From my one-on-one observations of K-street consultants, I can tell you that there is no love, no affection, no nothing for the GOP. The verdict is already in: The GOP lose in a landslide in 2012. Yes, you heard it now. Believe me later.

Keep in mind, Americans have always liked and been proud of the frontierswoman - capable, strong, self-sufficient, but a loving wife and mother. Going back to the 19th Century, she was the heroine of many an adventure story.

That's what Miss Sarah is and Mrs Bachmann has some of those qualities. What Americans don't seem to like the the Lefty femiinst - shrill(ary), mean, destructive, and hypocritical.

In 1892 the Montana constitution stated that women had the right to run for any office in the state and of course to vote. Almost all the states west of the Mississippi entered the union with full rights and privileges for women. Based on that history that a feminist is stunned by the comfort level with which many if not most men contemplate a female chief executive is stunning. In other words our history demonstrably refutes the feminist line. As to the notion that men are more comfortable with a tough woman as chief executive...well, duh.

And the current situation is not about "the simple equality of women." It is about Ms. Sarah and Michele Bachmann.

As for the Great Maggie, there is, or rather was, no more exclusive "good ol' boys club" in the world than the Conservative Party of the U.K. establishment, but that is where Mrs. Thatcher rose to become the party leader and a Prime Minister ranking with Lloyd George amd Mr. Chuchill in the 20th century.

And there is nothing "mannish" about Mrs. Thatcher; she was definitely of the female persuasion, and very much tended to have that effect on her associates.

For me the comments by Shouting Thomas above hit the mark. Palin does appear to be one of the strong mother-female figures that exist all over the place in a lower economic strata and or flyover country.

This is the woman who raised the kids, ran the tractor and took on the male establishment when needed to provide for the family. And made sure everyone got to church on Sunday.

The liberal women don't understand this type of character because they don't interact with the Wal Mart and or flyover State culture.

My only problem with Palin is that it appears a lot of her support is based on identity politics similar to the base Obama had. I wish that both had gotten much more governing experience before setting sights on top offices.

Curious George and Skyler are right, and then some. The Democrats claims to be champions of the "oppressed" or minorities are illusory.

They claim to be the party of acceptance, yet at every opportunity cast stones at the Christianity of the GOP.

They claim to champion the minorities, but their policies have created a bankrupt welfare state, and worse created a culture of dependence rather than opportunity. Just look at the history of most major cities in the Northeast to see how well decades of liberal policies are working out.

Far worse than anything else, and maybe more telling, they firmly believe Government is the answer to societies problems. Strikes me as elitism at its worse; they know better than everyone else. Remember BHO's statements about the "problem" with the branches of government?

I could care less if the GOP nominated a green martian that practiced with the Hare Krishna movement - just so long as it was conservative. Keep DC as inconsequential as practical.

HildaBEAST was an ugly woman, married to Bill Clinton; whom people adored. The magic of Bill Clinton never wore off on her!

And, you can tell this. Because when the Monica story broke, people in droves felt sorry for Bill. Whose wife was considered poisonous.

Newt Gingrich got all "Ken-Starr-ee" eyed over the republican "opportunities" to get Bill Clinton for his dropped pants.

Newt Gingrich is not able to mount a new run towards the presidency for a very good reason.

Hillary didn't become Obama's veep; for a very good reason!

And, McCain should have learned the lesson that there really aren't "Hillary's Voters" out there. But McCain doesn't learn. PERIOD.

That Iowa isn't a thrilling ride so far on the GOP trail. Could'a told you that.

Sad to see people also believing that they own star control. Like running for the presidency is on par with "Dancing For The Stars."

And, if you dial in enough, you're selecting the winning team.

Might as well just buy lottery tickets.

While Sarah Palin has already staged a few future steps. So has Donald Trump.

Trump, himself, said, that if he sees the GOP running weak. He's gonna jump in. Sarah could be on top. Sarah could run as a veep, again. But the DUMP-O movement takes on the high quality stakes ... because it appeals ... or ... can appeal. To a much broader section of voters.

Who want to be surprised.

They don't want to see "same ole, same ole, tactics ... used before by others. Including Bob Dole, who fell into the mosh pit.

There are many comments ahead of me that I find disturbing and refreshing.

Refreshing because people are awakening to the fact that the "Left" are basically exploiters. They will say and do anything for money and power. Thus the emphasis of victim hood. I believe the "Right" are quicker to realize and celebrate the humanness and value of each individual in their own right. Not the characterization the "Left" projects on us, i.e. "white privilege"

Disturbing because people have lost sight of the power of western civilization enlightenment embodied in the march to the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Do you see a William Wilberforce ( who fought for the outlawing of slavery) in the secularist arena? I don't.

Remember Margaret Chase Smith? Republicans have been open to women much longer than Democrats. If your question is serious, you've become more indoctrinated by left wing blather than you imagine.

Liberals convince women they're free and equal when they can have abortions, sex with anyone and everyone (as long as they don't receive remuneration) and vote Democrat. But, we've seen with Hillary, Sarah, Bachmann, etc what liberals really think of women.

Several thoughts rushing to my head. First, I agree with you that there is less fanfare about women politicians winning big offices on the Republican side. A Nikki Haley on the Dem side would rarely happen for all their (DNC + DEM talking heads and bloggers) talk about feminism and being the party of women's welfare and all that nonsense.

Hillary's situation was different. She had people support and there was enthusiasm because she would be the first female president. Why shouldn't there be? The meme 'not that woman' was implanted in the youth by Obama campaign who knew nothing of what she had done on her own. It was also the DNC who didn't want her and did everything to stop her. The fact that people did accept her freely as a possibility gets clouded by these other interferences.

@AJLynch--The two governmental culprits in the financial disaster are reckless Congressional regulation of mortgage lending and the Federal Reserve's low-interest-rate policies. A balanced-budget amendment wouldn't have restrained either one.

The feds can regulate our behavior through taxes and spending and through regulation. A BBA would clearly shift the balance toward more regulation, which is far less transparent than taxing and spending.

Nepal's Politico is making even less sense than usual. Could it be that his fractured English is the problem, or did he party too hard last night with his imaginary friends? We shall never know - he is less honest and sober than Titus, whom he might be.

Yes women candidates have become acceptable so the issue may be less about gender and more about ideology. Bachmann, for example, is able to ride one pony at a time, but has not been effective in government as opposed to Hillary who was and is. I think Hillary was held back by her ties to Bill, I know that affected my vote, and her tears, which many exaggerated the importance of. If only we had more Boehner tear events, she, in contrast, might have made it. I think the likely ticket is Perry for Pres and Palin sneaks in over Bachmann for v.p.

I would note that the Republican Party was also the first party to accept a black man as a serious candidate--though Colin Powell chose not to run for some of the same reasons Republicans liked him so much.

It's easy to forget, but always true. The Democrats are the party of nifty sloganeering, the Republicans are the party of principles. If you truly believe in the values Democrats claim to support, that's just one more reason to vote Republican. Because Republicans are the ones who actually work to realize those values.

DADvocate said...--------You're right. The far left hijacked the Dem party in 2008 and Obama played the ultimate liberal candidate. The DNC did not want another Clinton and it suited them just fine to prop up Obama dragging him through the finish line in the primary. The far left in their zeal to prop their candidate also stupidly committed suicide by disparaging Hillary's candidacy that looked more like they were rejecting her because she was a woman.

But these Republicans... what is happening in their minds? How was it that they so easily accepted what looks quite a bit like the simple equality of women?

You don't understand because you have (until recently) been immersed in the false academic liberal idea of feminism as compared to the conservative (note I do not say republican) every day version of feminism.

(I know I am generalizing and there will always be exceptions....so in GENERAL)

Conservative women have always been strong and equal in their relationships and especially in their communities.

Equal does not mean exactly the same in this context as it does in the liberal version. Conservative women do not aspire to be clones of men.

They are capable, decisive, determined. They work WITH the men in their communities, churches and as equal partners at home.

Community minded, family oriented and strong of will is nothing new to conservatives. Even if the woman hasn't pushed herself to the forefront in the past, there was always no doubt that "behind every good man stands a strong woman".

The simple equality of women has always been accepted in the conservative/republican arena.

The Republicans are a populist party these days and ordinary folks work with women and a rainbow of ethnicities all the time: whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. It is the upper classes that are most segregated.

I disagree. A BBA would have forced the fed govt to comply with more rigorous [GAAP?] accounting standards which would have required it to include the expenses of the ginormous losses at Fannie and Freddie which would have led to the housing spigot being turned off. And keep in mind, the housing bubble helped create the college tuition bubble.

The Republicans are a populist party these days and ordinary folks work with women and a rainbow of ethnicities all the time: whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. It is the upper classes that are most segregated.

Yes, particularly in Manhattan and San Francisco, the great intellectual liberal enclaves.

10 [b]A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. 11 Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. 12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. 13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. 14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. 15 She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. 16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. 17 She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. 18 She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night. 19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. 20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. 21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. 22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. 23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. 24 She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. 25 She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. 26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. 27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.” 30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. 31 Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Christian conservatism has always had this strain running through it -- that of a strong, capable woman running her house.

But what would be the "liberal" version?"She protests at the city gates, she demands greater entitlements.She pleasures men and women without discrimination; she laments that her womb is stretched and diseased.Her children exist at her own pleasure: some aborted, some adopted from foreign lands; some neglected for her career, some smothered by helicopter parenting.She subjects her husband to mockery and abuse, yet will seek to acquire all his worldly goods should he look for love elsewhere.She seeks status for herself as an independent woman, unless she can ride the coattails of her father or husband.She rejects maturity and glorifies youth, injecting bacteria into her face in a futile attempt to retain youthfulness."

Yeah, it's no wonder that female conservative candidates are a bit more accepted than the liberal ones.

I will vote for the candidate based on their known history and the principles they claim to follow. With Bachmann and Palin, I am unaware that either claims superior or exceptional female dignity or other artifacts which have arisen from gender conflicts. So, Bachmann is a viable candidate, and so is Palin if she decides to volunteer for service.

Who ever the next President may be, I hope they will have the dignity of not reveling in yet another "historical moment". Unfortunately, they probably will, as it seems that everyone has their cause to celebrate.

Same could be said for Hillary's professional career. The Rose Law firm is firmly ties to Arkansas political power...she became associate and first female partner when Bill became governor. ------

Knowing what we know about her now and even back then (she was a Yale graduate and an intellectual powerhouse in her own right) and during the primary, all those debates and her recent history of winning elective offices and such, you still have questions about her intellect and ambition?

When two intellectual heavy weights hook up in life, they have to take turns to manage each other's career. May be if women presidents were the norm in the day, Bill Clinton would have taken a back seat and she would have run and won. Then if BC wanted to run in the future would you have said he ran on her coattails?

So in this day and age, if the woman is equally capable intellectually and otherwise, she should just not attempt it because it would all be this coattail thing? At what point would people start to look at their individual potential and start to separate the individual?

Marriage between equals should not be a curse and should not hinder the woman's progress.

That's easy. Republicans are the party of individuals and judge people as such; Democrats are the party of groups.

This is why there are majority white congressional districts that have had black Republican congresscritters, most recently Allen West, but most, if not all, all black Democratic congrsscritters come from majority black districts.

For this conservative, gender, race, and other attributes outside of one's control, are neither qualifying nor disqualifying characteristics. Rather I am concerned about candidate's experience and values.

It is the lib/progs that play identity politics, and then project their prejudices onto others.

I was raised by New Deal Democrats in the sixties, who told me that generalizing about people based on external characteristics (meaning, at that time, race) was discrimination, and it was wrong. I embraced the counter culture, whose message in part was, though my hair and clothes look different from yours I'm still a person. Something was happening though. The left betrayed a willingness to lump people into groups, and to use the power of government to force upon people their ideas of morality. The hippie mantra of "free to be me" was jettisoned whenever leftists got the reins. And so I feel, like Reagan, that the left left me, not the other way around. In the final analysis it is conservatives that judge people, not on the color of their skin (or the arrangement of their chromosomes), but on the content of their character. In this election season, Democrats will suffer greatly from their gender politics hypocrisy.

That's a good summary of the situation. As individuals we are equal (i.e., the enlightened order), but as humans we are not the same (i.e., the natural order). The man and woman each have their unique responsibility in our world. It is not at all difficult to reconcile the distinction or its scope.

Marriage between equals should not be a curse and should not hinder the woman's progress.

@pm317

I agree. However, you will find that most republican/conservatives did not object so much to Hillary the marriage as objected to Hillary the ideologue.

It was her ideology, her political positions that were unpalatable.

I also lost respect for her as a person because of her defense of her snake of a husband and her accepting the humiliation of her sickening marriage situation as a trade off for being able to continue to grasp for power.

It was on a personal level that I objected to Hillary and in disagreement with her socialistic policy agenda.

In a marriage, both parties contribute to the success....or failure...of the whole. I guess it depends on what you consider a success. Enabling your husband to rape and humiliate other women so you can keep your own power....not so successful in my eyes.

@Ann That Thatcher happened in Britain, in a parliamentary system, doesn't establish what would work in America.------------

I have had arguments with people in India about why Indira Gandhi happened in India (in a parliamentary system) and not in America for the same reason.

I think Palin is saying things that need to be said about Obama that no other person or media has the courage or willingness to do. Bachmann is following in her footsteps. That is one reason for their instant popularity and acceptance.

Kudos to NYTNewYorker who cited Golda Meir as the first major leader figure--Golda was IIRC from Milwaukee by which (Mick nothwithstanding) might have made her eligible for the presidency--A classy and tough as nails lady.

Hey Chicken little==dissent bothers you, eh Kissinger queer? Has nothing to do with Sullivan--that's like you remembering your bum daddy or something. AS is not a progressive anyway, except to human excrement to you.

But these Republicans... what is happening in their minds? How was it that they so easily accepted what looks quite a bit like the simple equality of women?

Maybe you need to get out of the faculty lounge a bit more often, Madam Professor. Out in the real world people don't have time to worry about gender or ethnicity -- is the person good at the job, or not? My CEO is female, and she is outstanding at her job. If she weren't, no one would be cutting her any slack because of her gender -- our competitors least of all.

...(she was a Yale graduate and an intellectual powerhouse in her own right) and during the primary, all those debates and her recent history of winning elective offices and such, you still have questions about her intellect and ambition?

She only won those elective offices through her connection with Bill - she never had to start from zero and honestly compete through the ranks. And like Michelle O. at U. of Chicago, she was promoted at Rose Law simply because her husband had won an election - not because of any administrative brilliance of her own.

Maybe she was a good student at Yale, but her graduate thesis in praise of Saul Alinsky should raise plenty of doubts about her dedication to a democratic society, as opposed to street-level power grabs.

Conservatives aren't racists and sexists like the Lefties are. We care about ideas, not skin color or what kind of crotch you have. That basically is affirmative action and voting that way doesn't pick the best candidate based on qualifications.

Any way, in 2008 a lot of so-called moderate Republicans refused to vote for McCain (very RINO) because he picked Palin as VP. Many conservatives voted for him ONLY because he picked her as VP. In fact, we voted FOR HER, not him! It wasn't because she was a woman. It was largely because she was conservative (as well as other personal attributes). That part never gets talked about.

The Small, Pathetic Voice is here…to scream at the Blackness, “I’m here I’m alive!” Otherwise who would know of its existence? Obviously the comments on its “Blog” suggest it has no voice beyond leeching off of Althouse.

American fundamentalists are in no way traditional protestants either, KO, dumbass. John Wesley pisses on you and your mentally ill tweeker-politicians and harley-trash from on high. Luther hisself was not for wall-street capitalism was he.

Kirby Olson said...I think it's a Protestant thing. In northern Europe there are some female presidents like Tarja Halonen in Finland (the woman that Conan O'Brien resembled). Nobody blinked.----------------

Interesting. How do you explain the easy acceptance of female leadership in Latin American countries?

Googling, I found a 2007 npr article answering my own question, may be.. Pope Benedict is on a five-day trip to Brazil. Latin America is home to to a large percentage of the world's Catholics, but the church is losing members to a booming evangelical Protestant movement. The pope is expected to address the Vatican's concerns over the exodus in a meeting Sunday with Latin American bishops.

HildaBEAST was an ugly woman, married to Bill Clinton; whom people adored.

Adored?

He ran for POTUS twice and never got 50% of the popular vote.

He had the illusion of peace and prosperity and the triangulation of Dick Morris. And, I'm willing to bet, if we looked under the hood of a lot of those "amazing" poll numbers, we'd find the same manipulation we're seeing today for Little Zero.

J said...

the strength of the confidence in Sarah Palin and the comfort embodied in the simple reference "Sarah"

She definitely has a certain old-timey charm--like one of those crib gals in "McCabe and Mrs Miller"--Squirrel Tooth Sarah

J know nothing about women, except one. The most mentioned female in the flick - Five Fingered Mary.

A woman CiC only seems "not normal" is the mostly liberal media. Like racism, gender unfairness is greatly exaggerated. The 80% of people who see themselves as to the right of liberal have accepted equality long ago.

Without Hillary, Bill Clinton most likely would have wound up like his half-brother Roger, or, given his propensity for violence to women, quite a bit worse.Without Bill, Hillary Rodham quite possibly would have wound up as 2nd banana to Phyllis Schlafly.

garage--those are not zingers--just bile trash. J operates on the principle of calling people names, insulting their mothers, and offering calling people out for fisticuffs--of course, all of these things are possible when you are on the internet and living in your mothers basement.

It's the liberal critique that Republicans and conservatives would have trouble accepting a female commander-in-chief.

It depends entirely on the woman, just as it depends entirely on the man. Left-leaning political culture, being soaked in identity politics, cannot comprehend this distinction. Same thing applies of course to race. Recall the number of liberal heads in danger of exploding when it appeared Colin Powell might run for the GOP presidential nomination.

This post just highlights Althouse's political origins. Hard to shake off.

Even I'd agree it hasn't always been that way. I won't hazard a guess as to the earliest year in which a female presidential candidate became viable.

But if we'd had a Thatcher in the GOP the last time around, she would have taken the party by storm. We got a taste of that with Palin, but Palin is no Thatcher, as much as I'm grateful for what Palin has acomplished.

I think that what I feel about Palin can be summed up by how I feel about Obama: The thing I like Obama the most is that he's black. The thing I like about Palin the most is that she's a woman. Outside of that I have little admiration for either of them.

He has a way with ST, who deserves it with all the crap he flings. That's all I'm saying really. Don't care for the violent rhetoric myself, but I'm hardly a judge of who gets to say what here. I tend to think it's just performance dark art.

Garage--we agree on that (the performance art thing.). I do long for the days of usenet when flame wars were really good.

BTW Garage--if you find a taker for the lubbers quarter fishing cottages, let me know when you are going--I usually head over in May. Paul and Robbie to not skimp on the spiritous liquors side and could be great fun.

Fedka--agree that I have looked to western democracy leaders--Indira was indeed a tough cookie--on the other hand you had Corazon Aquino who demonstrated the not all women qua women made effective leaders. my take? women are like men (except for the physiological differences): some rise to the occasion (no pun intended) and some do not. Gender has nothing to do with it.

But these Republicans... what is happening in their minds? How was it that they so easily accepted what looks quite a bit like the simple equality of women?

The first thing you have to come to grips with is, when it comes to Republicans, you have been fed lies. The party that was started as a way to fight slavery is racist? And the party of the KKK isn't? O-kay. Bush (completely isolated politically) was the big spender - and the Democratic Congress wasn't? O-kay. It's all part of the whole, baby.

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann represent non-feminist womanhood, and (as far as I know) no man is bothered by that. As a matter of fact, we're glad to see it return.

Just as there is a "Real America," there's also a "Real Woman," and we have every confidence in her. We are not in competition and will not be betrayed. When asked how she felt about Bachmann's claim to "submit" to her husband, Sarah said she does as well - these are women a man can trust - because they're women who know how important trust is.

The rest have been brainwashed to be evil - and it shows - and has done so for a long, long time.

Long story short:

The Republicans aren't acting out of character, those judging them never had any.

J hands out some horrifyingly good zingers on ST once in a while you have to admit.

They'd actually be funny if they had something to do with the object of his affectation.

Roger J. said...

Fedka--agree that I have looked to western democracy leaders--Indira was indeed a tough cookie--on the other hand you had Corazon Aquino who demonstrated the not all women qua women made effective leaders.

Indira Ghandi was a hard core Socialist raised in a family under tough scrutiny by the Raj.

St Corazon the Bereaved sat out WWII in the lap of luxury as a VIP guest of General Yamashita.

Granted, Palin does have protection from witches (and "python spirits" as well). As does Bachmann apparently--tho' Bachmann would seem to hold that witches may be useful at times: they allow planes to fly, according to Bachmann (or her bumpkin preacher, more likely).

Not only does Welsey piss on ya from on high-- so do Jefferson and Madison: the fundamentalist candidates are exactly what the Founders wanted to prevent and the reason for the 1st Amendment.

One caller and you are ready to say the entire GOP is ready to accept a woman as President? Well we know they won't accept a black man so maybe the logical step is to accept a white woman. Small steps forward. But forward I suppose.

The political dynamic looks very much like a family after the marriage breaks up. Dad shows up with money and goodies, while mom has to teach the kids the hard things that will keep them off the street.

A tough mom who manages to live on what comes in and stands up to abuse and waste. And would do anything for her kids.

Derek: good points, sir. cant add anything to them, except by anecdotal evidence--My lady friend is highly educated, has played in republican politics in oregon (indeed an oxymoron), is conservative for the most part, and cant stand either Bachmann or Palin--there seems to me to be something on the xx chromosome involved here, and not wanting to jeopardize my relationship, i have chosen to remain silent--but I confess to not having a single insight into the thought processes of the holders of the xx chromosone.

My first reaction was to respond in a way similar to how many others have done: that conservatives are looking to the person and not the "identity," as the left uses that term.

That's true, but Ann's broader point is valid. Society has come a long way. I was in college in the late 60s, and I recall a professor saying women got a raw deal. I did not understand what he was talking about. It took a while for me to understand it and come to terms with it. If my understanding of it needed cementing, being the father of two daughters did that just fine. I never wanted their opportunities limited because they are female. I suspect I am not the only person out there with such a story.

Yes, the idea of you are not really voting for President...but how much you agree with the VP candidate, what they believe in, the policies the VP will enact.

THe 80s thus were about the suitability of HW Bush over Mondale and Ferraro. Quayle was a suitable replacement candidate, even if Benson beat him in debate. But by 1992, Voters had soured on Quayle, not trusting him to tell HW what to do.

Then the Gore Era started. He got a mandate from the people by trouncing Qualyle and Stockdale, then Kemp. But Cheney soon brought the VP-hood and fate of the nation back into Republican hands over less capable foes in running the Executive.

The Biden era looks to be in trouble. While voters saw him as a better warm bucket of spit than Palin...enthusiasm for Bachmann (or hereto be known as 'Michelle' once she gets the cult status of 'Jesse' or 'Sarah!' ) may put a new VP in charge of us.

C4--agree with the broad brush of your comments--but given the absolute lack of power the VP has, and John Nance Gardner observed, I would not personally base my vote on the Veep candidate--It worked for Harry Truman, but the country got lucky: Harry was the real thing. YMMV of course.

And Democrats didn't huddle and decide that they liked the black man over the white woman. There was a campaign, and despite Obama's relative inexperience in politics, his campaign was better than Clinton's.

If it's true that Mark Penn really ran the campaign as though the "caucus states" didn't matter, then Clinton signed off on a strategic blunder.

Almost Ali - " I believe I said on these very pages that I prayed McCain would suffer a debilitating (fatal) heart attack immediately following his inauguration. So he would not have even the slightest opportunity to damage the nation with his brain-deadness.

I voted for Sarah Palin, and I'd vote for her again."=====================Alas, had McCain lived 2 1/2 months after, as he has not being elected?? And if the old fool and backstabber died anyday soon....what are the odds Goddess Sarah would still be VP and not have already quit? (She looked to be on track for about the same amount of respect and involvement post election from Team McCain - Nixon's Team gave Spiro Agnew. Agnews role was to look good, and toss red meat to the yobbies.)

One year on the oil commission "taking on the big boys" then quitting when 'people got mean'. She lasted two years as Governor of a small population.

Golda Meir was born in Russia and might have been a leftist in her Milwaukee days. Israelis may be guilty of being economic leftists because of their dependence on US aid and remittances from Jewish charities, but no successful Israeli politician could be the sort of starry-eyed leftist that we have in the current Democratic party.

My father, an Irish nationalist, but no fool, used to say that Maggie Thatcher had more balls than all the rest of them put together. Although I do not agree with their politics, I think one could say the same about Sarah and Michelle. They are not saying things that have been tested with focus groups. They are not the pawns of interest groups.

The ferocity of media treatment of these two women is appalling and it backfires. Hilary got some of the same. In her heart, she must admire them.

An interesting speculation: if Palin or Bachman comes close to being put on the ticket by Republicans, will 0 put Hilary on his ticket? He might because it could stem some defections by female voters. He might not because liberals and the media seem to genuinely hate members of demographic groups who are not slaves to the Democratic party, and they foolishly believe that the electorate agrees with them.

The question isn't whether Americans can accept a female leader, but rather, what American women of the 20th century did to forfeit that trust. Palin is notably from outside the system, or from before it.

edutcher said...Actually, Cedar is talking through his hat again. The last few weeks before the election, you saw Palin - McCain signs people had cut then re-arranged.

=====================I am old enough to remember the feminists and progressive Jews (largely in NYC) fervor for "Our Geraldine" and cutting Mondale's name off signs.

How did the ticket with Ferraro pan out? Was it a pack of confused feminists and NYC Progressives yet again out claiming "No one they know didn't vote for Our Geraldine!"

Now grant you, a pack of hushpuppy chewing evangelical NASCAR fans who have some or no college - is NOT Pauline Kael expressing shock that not a single Jew on Manhattan or NY Times critic voted for "those Republican people".

But the country is a little bigger than the Sarah Cult. So the Pauline Kael principle is in effect. Edutcher takes to thinking "our sort of people" worshipping Palin was a sign of broad national strength.

Not true. Polls say Palin being placed on the ticket gained some energized Fundie voters - but lost 3 times as many from the woman's and independent vote McCain was counting on.

"But these Republicans... what is happening in their minds? How was it that they so easily accepted what looks quite a bit like the simple equality of women? "

Spoken like a Democrat! Have you forgotten America's and Republicans' support for Golda Meir? Indira Gandhi? Maggie Thatcher? Did you forget your own joy at the success of GOP female Alberta Darling? And Sarah herself? And now Michelle Bachman?

Of course you've forgotten. Your roots are liberal Democrat regardless of your current mindset. It's a difficult habit to get out of. Keep trying.

Yeah, Obama supporters and Hillary opponents want to play up her alleged missteps with her campaign. Obama's campaign had the facade of a seemingly better run campaign because of the media protection and Dem establishment support. The ordinary Dem voters did not huddle and decide (but they made their preference abundantly clear in picking Hillary for the top of the ticket and she would have picked him as her VP) but the Dem establishment, the media and many other elected Dems did huddle and carry him over the threshold -- May 31st meeting in the Marriott was the clincher.

edutcher said...Actually, Cedar is talking through his hat again. The last few weeks before the election, you saw Palin - McCain signs people had cut then re-arranged.

=====================I am old enough to remember the feminists and progressive Jews (largely in NYC) fervor for "Our Geraldine" and cutting Mondale's name off signs.

How did the ticket with Ferraro pan out? Was it a pack of confused feminists and NYC Progressives yet again out claiming "No one they know didn't vote for Our Geraldine!"

Now grant you, a pack of hushpuppy chewing evangelical NASCAR fans who have some or no college - is NOT Pauline Kael expressing shock that not a single Jew on Manhattan or NY Times critic voted for "those Republican people".

But the country is a little bigger than the Sarah Cult. So the Pauline Kael principle is in effect. Edutcher takes to thinking "our sort of people" worshipping Palin was a sign of broad national strength.

Not true. Polls say Palin being placed on the ticket gained some energized Fundie voters - but lost 3 times as many from the woman's and independent vote McCain was counting on.

Cedar must be making this stuff up as he goes along.

Don't know which polls Cedar's reading (or even who he means by "our sort of people", but I do remember 30,000 people turning out to see her one day in FL, which probably galvanized the Lefties into trying to destroy her), but even the Establishment Media conceded Miss Sarah brought in all the undecideds.

And it was McCain who was supposed to bring in the women and independents - that was his big selling point in the primaries. Something which everyone agrees he didn't do.

I see a lot of very good decent moral people with moderate points of view in many Christians. So when I understand someone to be a Christian I withhold my judgements about their character. Generally I give people the benefit of the doubt whatever they are.

It's true I believe quickly evolving attitudes are going to catch a lot of people flat-footed - GOP, Dems, lots of folks.

My particular comment was intended to refer to people who think that Dems don't like Bachmann because they have a special disdain for women evangelicals. It seems that attitude is around a lot (maybe I'm misinformed though). I think those people would be making a mistake and they shouldn't be in charge of GOP strategy.

DBQ, C4 doesn’t need facts….don’t confuse him with them.There ARE arguments against Palin:1) She may well be an “open Borders” Republican;2) Governor of AK is better than Governor of Nowhere (Bachman OR Obama) but it is still a fairly small state,There are FAUX arguments against Palin:1) She raised taxes on oil companies…not so much true.2) She distributes welfare to the citizens of AK (like or not the oil revenue is the citizen’s by the AK Constitution)3) AK is a “welfare” state, as 2/3 of AK is Federal land what do you expect? The answer is privatize Federal holdings, nation-wide.And then there are just foolish arguments:1) She’s “unelectable” McCain was “electable” and how’d that work out, and this is an “argument” only in hindsight, correct if she loses, but incorrect if she wins, so it’s hardly even an argument2) She’s a “Quitter”3) She’s only in it for the money, unlike Mr. “Audacity of Hope” and his two autobiographies4) She’s “stoopit”, unlike Mr. Fifty-Seven states or Mr. Cinquo de Quatro?5) She’s “divisive” unlike Mr. Hopey-Changey?The first set is debatable but are really just a tiny minority of the comments I see, probably less than 10%. The second set is about 25% of what I read, and the VAST majority, 6 or 7 out of 10 are the last. People don’t OPPOSE Palin, they HATE her….And I have theories about it, but it’s amazing. C$ is just one more h8ter.

BTW, I too voted for Palin in ’08…I wasn’t going to vote until he chose her. And yes, I realize the powerlessness of the Veep, but it was enough of a good choice it persuaded me to vote, for Palin.

phx said: "My particular comment was intended to refer to people who think that Dems don't like Bachmann because they have a special disdain for women evangelicals."

Maybe I misunderstand your comment. Do you think there is not a special disdain on the left for female evangelicals? It seems quite obvious from the treatment of Bachmann, Palin, and in fact most religious+conservative women over the last few decades. It's comforting to believe those nice folks don't hate those women, but they do hate those women, even though they don't care to defend such hate, for obvious reasons (it's unenlightened to hate, and it's unChristian as well).

You are assuming that a shift is actually occurring in Republican minds. I would assert that many of us never were uncomfortable with women in power, as a concept, ever. Only the WRONG women. What thrills me about the current Republican women is that we are seeing not only women in politics, but feminine women (as opposed to mannish women in pantsuits) with strong conservative principles who are not afraid to confront the establishment. That, in my opinion, is what has been missing heretofore. These are women we can be proud of and get behind.

Of course, I'm only 35, and perhaps my mind has a different mindset than my elders. For example, I've never been of the generation that would vote for a woman JUST BECAUSE she's woman. And that is where the shift is, perhaps, because my mom's generation certainly would, as I heard discussed often when Hillary was running. For them, including my Republican female friends, the womanness was just as, if not more, important than the actual polical beliefs. For me, policies trump gender (or race, or religion), which frankly is more equal towards women than feminism for feminism's sake. Women can now stand on their merits, just like men do, and is that not a true victory for women, to have finally gotten to that point?

(The Crypto Jew)The Republicans best shot at the Presidency in 2008 would have been Condi Rice. If the powers in the party had had any sense they would have seen that

That’s a joke, right?Condi:1) No Executive experience, State is the worst MANAGED Cabinet…2) No campaign experience, unlike Obama whose forte IS campaigning3) A “squish” on Affirmative Action; 4) And, IIRC, Gun Control.We’d have been “Moidelized”…it would have been embarrassing AND Painful…Politics ain’t the NBA…you don’t go from Jr. High or High School to the NBA, in politics, there ain’t NO substitute for experience, in this game. The missteps would have come left and right and the ads write themselves.

It's comforting to believe those nice folks don't hate those women, but they do hate those women, even though they don't care to defend such hate, for obvious reasons (it's unenlightened to hate, and it's unChristian as well).

It is unenlightened to hate. It doesn't usually help your cause either.

Yes, some people on the left probably hate women evangelicals especially. There are crackpots across the spectrum.

IMO the Democrats who are going to beat you aren't those Democrats though, and if you focus on them because they are low-hanging fruit, you are making a mistake.

The "you" in this post doesn't refer to any specific individual, so don't take it personally.

It seems quite obvious from the treatment of Bachmann, Palin, and in fact most religious+conservative women over the last few decades.

What is even more strange (or perhaps it isn't really that strange) is that whenever, I as a woman, argue conservative viewpoints...the leftist immediately assume that I am a bible thumping evangelist type of person.

They want to attack my viewpoints, but instead lower themselves to attacking what they 'suppose' I believe. Thinking that if they attack the Bible, Jesus or other religious items such as abortion etc, that they are somehow attacking me.

They just cannot seem to comprehend that a person can be a female, conservative fiscally, libertarian on social issues and agnostic on religion of all stripes.

Does...Not...Compute.

So they fall back on their own prejudices and talking points instead of thinking about the debate points being discussed.

Well, DBQ you’re female, of THAT age, and a professional or retired professional, so OBVIOUSLY you’re one of “us.” The ONLY reason you wouldn’t be is that you’re one of THOSE People, you know Bible Thumpers….This follows as night follows day.

'The two governmental culprits in the financial disaster are reckless Congressional regulation of mortgage lending and the Federal Reserve's low-interest-rate policies. A balanced-budget amendment wouldn't have restrained either one.'

Yes, but it would have prevented the government pouring money down the rabbit hole and strangling the recovery in federal waste and overregulation

"One caller and you are ready to say the entire GOP is ready to accept a woman as President? Well we know they won't accept a black man so maybe the logical step is to accept a white woman. Small steps forward. But forward I suppose."

No one said "entire". You made that up.

How do you think Obama got elected? Oh, I know, you're not talking about that. You're taking out that old lie that the ONLY reason anyone would EVER oppose Obama is because of his skin color.

Yes, but it [a Balanced Budget Amendment] would have prevented the government pouring money down the rabbit hole and strangling the recovery in federal waste and overregulation

A lot of generally conservative people thought that TARP I was a good idea, b/c they were worried about the possibility of complete financial collapse and ensuing economic disaster. When output (and therefore income) collapses, the budget goes into deficit all on its own because of declining tax revenue, so a BBA would have required us to jack up tax rates quite a bit in the midst of a hideous economic situation.

phx, thanks for your response. Your points are interesting. I gather you're saying that the average left-of-center person really doesn't foam at the mouth.

Like Dust Bunny Queen, I've seen and heard so much hatred on the left that it's hard to believe it's all isolated on the fringe. I'm talking back to Reagan, the most hateful, hated, Nazi, Satanic figure of his time. Leftists were insane about him, just as they were recently about George W. Bush. My leftist friends think I'm crazy to think that Bush was other than an idiot or that Republicans could actually have the nation's future success at heart.

The new hatred directed at Bachmann and Palin reminds me of how people reacted to Phyllis Schlafly back in the day, and to Clarence Thomas. Hate hate hate! Maybe there's a great mass of lefties that think deeply, but in general, the American left strikes me as much more diseased than the right with simplistic, Manichean thinking.

Well, slightly off topic but I miss Jeane Kirkpatrick at the U.N. and think we sure could use another of her caliber there or in any number of cabinet leads in the next White House (GOP) administration.

As much as Sarah Palin is vaunted as a possible contender for the Oval Office, I have no problem with her heading the Dept. of Energy under the next administration and righting this floundering ship to domestic fuel sources, telling OPEC (under Iran's leadership, no less) to shove it. She knows the industry and has business experience in oil and fishing.

On topic, what the left, and the Obama-driven MSM in particular, did to Hillary and to Geraldine Ferraro during the 2008 DNC primary run should have been a major wake-up call to "feminists", but it apparently wasn't. News agencies, such as AP, insisted on taking photos of Palin from the high heels up to her knees, or from 'behind' in order to sexualize her ... while insisting on presenting photos of Obama with anything that resembled a halo or Messiah-like connotation.(As a matter of fact, the same news agencies are beginning it again with Obama.) Most all attacks on Palin were gender oriented in some manner or another, with some of the loudest and nastiness coming from female talkingheads. Yet, Palin credited both Hillary and Geraldine for paving the way for women in politics. While some fluffed off the Newsweek cover of Bachmann last week, the fact Tina Brown was responsible for it and came out to defend it says volumes to me about the fly paper tiger that is liberal feminism.

Itbegs the same question Ann posed in another thread regarding the "hate crime" aspect of the WI State Fair mob beatings.

Hey C4--is it possible for you to get thru a fucking post without talking about "progressive jews?" You cant to it can you--Give it a rest son--you saidlogi I believe that you were an engineer officer in the Kuwait war--I can believe you were/are an engineer because you have that manichanean view of reality. Thats what engineers do and are. Served with enough of your engineer colleagues to know.

PLEASE try to do three consecutive posts without using "progressive jews."you have good points to make but dilute them with what seems to me to be a pathological obcession about "progressive jews."

DBQ - If Obama announced he was dropping Biden, which new VP would make you enthusiastic enough to vote for him?

Or would you say that whomever the replacement VP Obama picked was, would be absolutely, totally irrelevant? As the VP would be as effective to changing Obama and his policies as a 2nd in line bucket of warm spit would be?

Or would have the Goddess Palin been able to get past the vindictive, carry grudges for life,"my way or the highway" McCain and ordered the fighter jock around?Or would she aside from fundraisers out in "rubes & oxycontin" country..been assigned to more 2nd rate "leader" funerals and meet and greets of Iowa Kiwanis Clubs than Agnew and Quayle combined if she dissed McCain and went rogue on him?